KDWPT Response to Removal of Senior Exemption

[Craig Johnson]

I have provided the document explaining the KDWPT position on removing the senior exemption for hunting and fishing licenses made available yesterday from the Office of the Secretary. Hopefully this will answer many of the questions that have been asked on this site over the past couple of weeks. Since this topic is out of my area of expertise as a fisheries biologist, please direct any additional questions on this issue to the KDWPT Office of the Secretary in Topeka. Feel free to discuss on this thread but I won't be answering any questions pertaining to the exemption as I don't have any more information than what is posted below.

Thank you,

Craig

---

Removing the Senior Exemption for Hunting and Fishing Licenses


The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT) is asking the Kansas Legislature to
consider removing the hunting and fishing license exemptions for persons 65 years of age and older.
Kansas residents younger than 16 and older than 64 have not been required to purchase a hunting or
fishing license since 1971. We can understand the many questions and concerns this request has sparked.
More than 40 years is a long time to have enjoyed a free privilege. However, the request is not meant to
unfairly target seniors. In fact, it will make the license fee structure more equitable for all hunters and
anglers, help continue the programs and services they enjoy, and help pass along the outdoor tradition to
future generations.

There are several reasons for this request.

First, State General Fund tax dollars are not used for KDWPT wildlife and fisheries programs. Instead,
these programs are funded by a combination of license/permit fees and a federal match for each individual
who buys a license or permit. Fifteen percent of the department’s budget comes from that federal funding,
which is provided through the Wildlife and Fish Restoration Program, and is based on the numbers of
hunting and fishing licenses sold. The federal funds come from excise taxes on hunting and fishing
equipment. When a user doesn’t buy a license, Kansas wildlife and fisheries programs lose money once
due to lost license revenue and again due to lost federal aid if the user doesn’t also buy a permit.

This license fee/federal dollar model of funding wildlife management is followed by all the states.
Currently, 15 states offer free hunting/fishing licenses, four states have discount/free combo licenses, 30
states have discount licenses, and one state has no discount licenses.

License and permit holders support many outdoor services. Removing the license exemptions for the
senior age group will help KDWPT to continue providing a variety of hunting and angling opportunities.
For example, licensed hunters and anglers support the Walk-in Hunting Access (WIHA) program, which
opens more than 1 million acres of private land to public use; and the Community Fisheries Assistance
Program, which makes it easier to fish at more than 200 community lakes. In addition, license revenues
pay for fisheries management and fish stocking at 24 federal reservoirs and 40 state fishing lakes,
wildlife-related law enforcement, wildlife management at 100 public wildlife areas, boating access, fish
habitat programs, research, education and wildlife population and health monitoring.

Second, we must adapt to changing times. The state’s population is changing and so are hunters and
anglers. Hunters and anglers are aging, and more activities compete for our recreational time than ever
before. According KDWPT records, the number of hunters 65 and older who purchase deer permits has
increased by 25 percent in the last five years. However, at this time, these permit holders do not have to
purchase a hunting license. The problem will worsen with increasing life expectancy and as more baby
boomers reach their 65th birthday. If we don’t broaden the funding base for hunting and fishing programs,
our children and grandchildren will have to carry a heavier burden to pay for the services all hunters and
anglers enjoy. Spreading the cost among all who hunt and fish will ensure quality opportunities are
affordable for all.

Third, we think an annual license is a bargain for a year’s worth of hunting and fishing enjoyment.
Individual hunting and fishing licenses cost $20.50 each (including $2.50 vendor and convenience fees).
Even better, at $38.50 (including $2.50 vendor and convenience fees), a combination hunting and fishing
license costs less than 11 cents a day. Annual licenses are bargains compared to dining out, catching a
movie or playing a round of golf.

Licenses are a small portion of the cost when we consider other expenses related to hunting and fishing. A
general fishing rod is $17; a box of 25 steel-shot shotgun shells costs $14; buying 15 gallons of gas at
$3.00/gal. will cost $45.00; and a Remington 870 shotgun is $330.

Finally, the estimated lost revenue of more than $1.4 million is rather significant. Estimated lost hunting
license revenue amounts to more than $550,000 and the estimated lost fishing license revenue comes to
more than $847,000 (See calculation details below).

In summary, the importance of license revenues to the state’s wildlife and fisheries programs, the
changing demographics of hunters and anglers, the relatively low cost of an annual license compared to
other activities, and the estimated lost revenue of more than $1.4 million all combine to make this request
something that should be seriously considered.


CALCULATIONS OF ESTIMATED POTENTIAL LOST REVENUE
Based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlifeassociated
Recreation in Kansas, 20,000 Kansans 65 years old and older hunted in 2006. (Results for the
latest USFWS survey won’t be available until this summer.)

o Estimated lost annual hunting revenue due to 65 and older exemption:
o 20,000 x $18/hunting license* = $360,000
o 20,000 (minus 7,696**) = 12,304 x $16.15 federal aid/licensed hunter = $198,709
o Total Estimated Potential Lost Annual Hunting Revenue = $558,709

*The department receives $18.00 from the sale of each hunting license after the vendor and convenience
fees are subtracted.
**The department receives $16.15 in federal aid for each licensed hunter. Hunters 65 and older who
purchase a big game or turkey permit may be claimed as licensed hunters for federal aid purposes.

• Based on the USFWS 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated
Recreation in Kansas, 33,000 Kansans 65-years old and older fished in 2006.
o Estimated lost annual fishing revenue due to 65 and older exemption:
o 33,000 x $18.00/license* = $594,000
o 33,000 (minus 2,520**) = 30,480 x $8.31 federal aid/licensed angler = $253,289
o Total Estimated Potential Lost Annual Fishing Revenue = $847,289

*The department receives $18 from the sale of each fishing license after the vendor and convenience fees
are subtracted.
**The department receives $8.31 in federal aid for each licensed angler. Anglers 65 and older who
purchase fishing permits such as third pole or trout permits may be claimed as licensed anglers for
federal aid purposes.


Total Estimated Potential Annual Lost Revenue Due to
Fishing and Hunting License Exemptions =$1,405,998



Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Office of the Secretary, 1020 S Kansas Ave., Ste. 200, Topeka, KS 66612
January 23, 2012

---

[Blackdog40]

Yep hit the old retired guys on fixed income they can afford it most. Might do like OK does charge a senior fee to get your fed funding but hey go for the juggler and suck all the blood out. I for one will not vote for a legislator that supports this bill and I hope all the other over 65 fill the same. Heck up the out of state fees to fish if you need more money stop trying to solve your problem on the backs of the old folks.

[Blackdog40]

You have not lost anything sense you have not had it. Do you need the money? Well of course you do now that we are supporting tourism out of your budget. That was a smart move.

[Blackdog40]

I for one would continue buying the third pole, trout permit, and jug fishing permit. That counts to the fed money. I just do not understand why you would do this at this time when we are all struggling to make ends meet.

[Blackdog40]

o Estimated lost annual hunting revenue due to 65 and older exemption:
o 20,000 x $18/hunting license* = $360,000
o 20,000 (minus 7,696**) = 12,304 x $16.15 federal aid/licensed hunter = $198,709
o Total Estimated Potential Lost Annual Hunting Revenue = $558,709

YOU did not loose it you never had it now you want it. Why do you need the extra money am I going to catch a million more fish if you get this. Where will the money go. Admit it you just want more money to spend how ever you want just like all government don't matter just give me more money. banghead

[imajigger2]

As yu say bd40, it will not be decided here but by contacting the legislators and letting your feelings known will carry more weight. Unfortunately the secretary never returned my call. The numbers posted above are indeed interesting but in my opinion fall well short of some of the questions posed. If one takes the time to read through the whole survey mentioned above, some other interesting facts come to light. For instance 33000 is the number mentioned about over 65 permits. What about the 178,000 unlicensed resident not counting non-resident free permits for those who fished ages 6 to 15? The play was made that we need the 65 year olds to insure the future for these youngsters. A raise in fees for all us in between could have offset the fees for both the oldsters and the youngsters, after all in their own words hey 18 bucks is cheap lets double or triple it and insure the benefit for both groups. Why all of a sudden are we so concerned aout the future generations to come when it is quite apparent that more and more of them are leaving this sport? Lets really get behind the future and throw that age group in the mix and when all said and done lifetime permits will soar as it is such a great deal. What happens when they start outliving the lifetime permit, after all the funding does run out for these as stated in another thread. Oh wait a minute, it's about numbers not price come on guys which is it numbers or price that dictates the dollars!! okay, lets take everyone into the fold and lower the cost for all to achieve the numbers you politicians seek. Why burden 33 thousand when we spread it out for an additional 211 thousand added to the 200 and some odd thousand? Wait, whats that you say, the future generations should NOT be held accountable for something they will use, isn't that the awful word "entitlement" Pray tell me what makes their entitlement more important than the over 65 people!! The politicians like to speak in generalities and how they're looking out for the future!! Where are the numbers of how many will be driven from the sport or just say to heck with it and move on to another hobby? Think it can't happen? Take a look again at all the facts that say the future 6 to 15 year olds just ain't interested in the sport and no amount of entitlement will increase a generational feeling or lack thereof!! This reeks of what happened to KPERS where did all that money go? Are we sure this money will go where you say it will, after all the other politicians promised the same thing and now all of a sudden it is gone, caused by the baby boomers of course, not the inflated promises and outright robbery by the current politicians. How does a supposed fiscally conservative Sam Brownback get elected then appoint a secretary whose first year in office is to broaden the tax base that is equitable to all using the resource? Yes I have posed this question and am also still awaiting an answer from the high office.

[labsnslabs]

blackdog are you on a fixed income? Ive heard you say your worried about taking money away from the old retired guys that are on a fixed income multiple times. Are you worried that you are not going to be able to afford to go fishing when you have to spend that extra $20.50? And imajigger you propose that we should start charging the kids instead? As you stated more and more are leaving this sport, we should really help that buy charging them. And who is most likely going to pay that license fee, probably the grandparent that is taking there grandchild out on the weekends a couple times a year. Now i know its not the old retired guys problem worrying about the future of our w&p since you guys will be done using it when it really gets in trouble because hardly any of this generation hunt or fish.

[fishlessDan]

Yeah, lets require that kids have to have licenses(have to buy one for my kid now anyways). That will help bring in money for KDWPT, after all kids don't care to use the outdoors anyways.

Let the "ENTITLED" 65+ crowd keep their FREE license and since the cost of doing business has gone up and the KDWPT money is going down we can watch the ramps, facilities, fisheries campgrounds and everything else tied to our outdoor experience go down the tubes! Heck who needs walleye and wipers stocked in the state? or blue cats or stipers, who cares about the ANS situation? Let it all go to crap! Start laying off the LEO's and biologists! Heck, get rid of the KDWPT altogether and just let it be a free for all! Everyone should think like the "ENTITLED" 65+ crowd and say throw the -16 group to the wolves if it is going to cost us a dime! After all a "LIFETIME" license has only been available since the mid 70's!

[LBM]

Since I haven’t responded to this issue you all have probably already guessed I’m more concerned with the unconscious and inconsiderate intruding on and bugging the considerate fishers trying to have a pleasant day on the water than requiring that all fisher folks obtain a fishing license.

Counting all the times I’ve come home with my bag of fishing goodies and finding I already have some of those exact same items in my plastic tote stash unused unopened still in the plastic store bag from previous trips. Maybe spending $20.50 for a license would perhaps tend to cause me to go through my stash before going to the toy store but probably not.

Anyhow JMHO here as though anyone really gives a flip about MHO’s on this license issue or any others I’ve posted on.

[imajigger2]

So now you are outraged at the suggestion of one "ENTITLED" group of people asking what makes your group of "ENTITLED" people more special than another? I thought the bottom line here was to get money to help the resource obviousley some of you feel that only a certain group should have to fund for others, what do you call that? Do you wanna grow the funding greatly or do you wanna grow the funding just a little bit? How bout this out of the box thinking. If there are already 200 some odd thousand licenses that are used for the 3 to one match funding why would you not only want 33 thousand more in the pot instead of throwing in another 177 thousand along with the 33 thousand and have another 200 thousand added to the already 200 thousand and create the potential for 400 thousand licenses at a lower cost for ALL in the pot but still greatly increasing the funding. Sounds to me like sour grapes there fellows let alone lets hang one group out there and pat ourselves on the back cause we gettin them nasty old "ENTITLED" people while pat yourself on the back here, "PROTECTING A GROUP OF ENTITLED PEOPLE CAUSE THEY DESERVE IT MORE AND I"M LOOKIN OUT FOR THE KIDS". If your goal is to grow the resource funding then your whole argument is out the window including "it's only 20 bucks". Charge everybody 20 bucks and with the 3 to one match they could fund everything everone wants. Whats that you say, but but i gotta pay for all my kids!!! Hey it's only 20 bucks here and 20 bucks there what the heck!!! Just like you say if you can't afford to pony it up stay out of the game, after all thats what your telling the over 65 crowd. Sometimes there are unwritten moral obligations and promises that were inferred and not written in stone or law. I was raised in my generation to respect the elders love the children and teach them responsibility to all citizens, Those teaching must be gone from most of the nexter and gen X generations, that is painfully obvious. I'm glad I set a better example for my kids and over 65 crowds. it will be what it will be when the legislature decides and it will be the ark of your generations, sleep well.